For those concerned about the influence of money in politics, things have never been worse. But one activist sees reason for hope.

The state of campaign-finance law is in the spotlight thanks to super PACs and their massive impact on the presidential campaign. The widespread angst about the rise of these groups and their largely unrestricted campaign spending has brought renewed attention to the often lonely crusade of groups like Common Cause that seek to reduce the influence of money in politics. Mary Boyle, Common Cause's vice president, is a former newspaper reporter who has been with the group for a decade. In a recent interview at a Washington coffeeshop, she talked about why she believes there's hope for reform. This interview has been edited and condensed.

You're a campaign-finance reform advocate. Is that a pretty lonely fight a lot of the time?

Yes, certainly. You say "campaign-finance reform" and a lot of people's eyes glaze over. It is difficult in times when the economy hasn't collapsed, when the mortgage foreclosure crisis hasn't just happened. It is hard to get regular people who've got a lot of other worries and problems -- their kids, their families, their schools -- to pay attention to why it matters that some billionaire is writing $10 million checks to presidential candidates and why they should care about that, why that matters to their life.

It's a little easier now. Americans are just acutely aware they have gotten the short end of the stick. People are getting this. I think that Occupy [Wall Street] deserves some of the credit for really raising the national narrative around that issue.

Do you get a sense that people are newly mobilized around this issue?

Right now I feel like Common Cause's issues are really front and center. There is more money than ever in politics. There's the Citizens United decision that unleashed all this corporate money. In a presidential year, Common Cause also works on protecting the vote and fighting things like voter ID laws that, in our view, make it harder for people to vote. We are also looking at some of the process issues that we think are a factor in grinding Washington to a halt, like the filibuster and how frequently the Senate is abusing that. We are working on some filibuster-reform issues.

There's this real sense in the country that Washington isn't working for average Americans. We would agree with that, and we're trying to work on some of the fundamental issues as to why it's not working. A big part of that is our campaign-finance system and how we pay for campaigns. We have basically a system of legalized bribery where, if you want to run for elected office, you go to the people who are most willing to give you big checks or bundle big checks, and those also happen to be the people who want something from government. So you've got this system where people who want something from government are also the ones paying for the campaigns of our elected officials. It's kind of no shock that one of the outcomes of that is a government that is looking out more for their donors than for average people. And this is something that cuts across party lines -- it's not an issue about Democrats or Republicans.

Is it really true that there's more money in politics than ever before? A hundred years or so ago, didn't you have robber-baron types who essentially were the patrons of individual candidates?

That's true, and I would argue right now, with super PACs, we are there again.

To be perfectly cynical, you talk about regular people getting mobilized around this issue, but does that really matter if the politicians aren't interested in reform? Is there any political will to change?

We think there are a number of solutions, and one is essentially a public-financing system for Congress. We believe that most people who seek public office go in with best of intentions. The system ends up, for lack of a better word, corrupting them, making them make these decisions where they're going to their big donors and they're taking their campaign money because they have to if they want to be reelected. Votes are taken, decisions are made that favor that [donor]. One of our arguments to the Hill and to politicians in general is, if we had a different system, a small-donor public financing system, you wouldn't have to spend all your time dialing for dollars -- begging for money, basically.

What response do you get to that argument?

We generally get agreement, but I think there is some truth in the idea that everyone who's been elected to office has gone through this system. It's almost like a hazing. They have mastered it, they got through it, they got it down, they know the tricks, they've got their donors. They are reluctant to change it.

Isn't there also a sense that it's just not possible to get money out of politics, no matter what you do?

There's some of that. But I think [it's overblown]. Two years ago, before the Republicans took over the House, we had close to 200 cosponsors of the Fair Elections Now Act. We had Republican cosponsors and Democratic cosponsors. This is not something that just lives in the head of good-government groups.

There's a lot of confusion about what Citizens United did and didn't do, with a backlash recently from those who say it's being blamed for a lot of things, like super PACs, that actually have nothing to do with that particular decision.

What Citizens United did do is allow corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money. What Citizens United did not do is allow the Sheldon Adelsons of the world to give their $11 million checks. He still could have done that in 2008 -- it wouldn't have been to a super PAC, but maybe it was to a 527. But it's been a string of Supreme Court decisions that have loosened all the rules. There was a second decision [SpeechNow v. FEC] based on the Citizens United decision, and that made it easier for the Sheldon Adelsons of the world to give that money to Super PACs. So they could have done it before, but the SpeechNow federal court ruling after Citizens United made it easier.

How?

The SpeechNow decision got rid of the $5,000 limit that had previously existed for individual contributions to independent groups.

But the limits for individual contributions to candidates still exist.

It's only independent groups. The only rule of super PACs is you can't coordinate with the candidate.

But super PACs still have to disclose their donors, right? I think a lot of people mix up the worry about secret money with the worry about corporate money.

They still have to disclose, but if I am a corporation and I give money to the Chamber [of Commerce] and the Chamber gives money to the Super PAC, that way I can hide the fact I have given.

Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21 has written a good explainer on exactly this question, how and why Citizens United has brought us to this point. Because some people are out there saying, well, Sheldon Adelson could have done what he did before.

Right, large independent expenditures by wealthy individuals aren't new. What's happening with super PACs now is analogous to what was done by the Swift Boat Veterans or MoveOn in 2004, isn't it?

That's right, but there was not unlimited corporate money involved. The latest figures show that corporate money thus far has only been about 17 percent, so people are saying, see, this whole corporate nightmare is not coming to fruition. We think it's way too early to say that, because a lot could be going on through [groups like] the Chamber that's not disclosed, because disclosure rules are so thin. There are lots of ways to funnel things. Two, we're not in the general election yet. And three, we think one of worst things about Citizens United is that it cleared way for just the threat of spending. The idea that a wealthy corporation could spend a million dollars or even six figures, which in a congressional district is enough to swing a campaign -- that creates kind of not a great legislating climate. If you're a member of Congress, you're looking over your shoulder. You're not thinking, "How can I cast a vote in the best interest of my constituents?"

Politicians would say you're the one being cynical when you assume that money influences their votes in this way. They argue that they get contributions from all kinds of different interests, but when it comes time to vote, they put that aside and listen to their constituents above all.

Who can look you in the face and say, "Yes someone gave me a million dollars to help me win my election, but I don't put any credence in what they say to me, I am not in any way looking out for them"? I mean, it's just not human nature. We're not saying in every case they are buying votes, but when someone gives you a large amount of money, they are in the back of your head.

Is it really possible to create a muscular campaign-finance regime? Before Citizens United, we'd just had McCain-Feingold, which was supposedly landmark campaign-finance legislation, and we still had things like those massive independent expenditure campaigns in 2004.

That's true, it's not like we went from paradise to where we are now -- things were bad before. We do think there is a way to have a small-donor public financing system. The Fair Elections Now Act is similar to state systems in Connecticut, Maine, and Arizona that are running and working. The gist of it is, you raise small contributions from a certain number of people in your district based on population. So let's say [the threshold is] 500 $100 contributions. You then qualify as a serious, legitimate candidate, and you get the qualifying money -- you can't accept lobbyist or special-interest money, and contributions from your district are matched with federal money. There's talk of [the match being] 4-1. So a $100 donation is suddenly worth $500. It's very heavily reliant on public financing, but it still allows people to give those small donations. From our perspective, these are the healthy donations that are not looking to buy favors or legislation.

But there is a public-financing system in presidential elections, right? And Obama opted out of it.

There is, but it's badly broken. It needs to be fixed by Congress. It needs more money, the timing has got to be changed to fit a modern campaign. It hasn't been updated in a long time. We think it can and should be fixed.

How damaging was it that Obama chose not to participate in the public financing system in his last campaign, and that he recently reversed his stance on approving the super PACs supporting his campaign?

It was damaging that he opted out, and we were very disappointed he gave the green light to the super PACs. As someone who ran on change, someone who opted out of the presidential public-financing system saying, "but I'm going to fix it," and then didn't do that, it was disappointing. We put out a pretty strong public statement to that effect.

If Barack Obama, whose platform and worldview seem about as close to the good-government activist viewpoint as any president in memory, isn't going to do it, who is? It seems like if even he's going to surrender to the status quo in this regard, anybody would.

We think what has yet to unfold in this campaign in terms of the money, in terms of the corruption we may or may not see immediately, but that will come with these huge donations -- we certainly don't hope for a crisis, but like I said, it takes a tipping point. We think we are at that tipping point, and we will see it even clearer in the months to come. The American people will see what happens when our elected officials are allowed to take millions of dollars, what happens in return in terms of how our government is run.

Coordination between campaigns and super PACs is supposed to be illegal, yet you see candidates speaking at their super PACs' fundraisers, you see super PAC donors like Adelson and Foster Friess hanging out with the candidates, you see the same staffers working on both the campaigns and the super PACs. Is there a sense that there's no meaningful regulation left at all, and if there is, if it's challenged, the court will just knock it down?

The Roberts Court certainly has been moving in that direction. A mockery is basically being made of our campaign-finance laws. I would not say there is a sense of fear [of enforcement] out there. On top of that, we have a Federal Election Commission that basically has its hands tied behind its back. They are constantly deadlocked and totally ineffective. It's politicized, there are three Democrats and three Republicans, it's a disaster. In our view, it has to be remade and restructured. They are appointed by Congress to basically patrol Congress, and that doesn't work.

It's great. This obviously can be dry stuff, and the fact that he has gotten people excited and interested and talking about super PACs is fabulous. [Last week] we had a rally and 100 people came out to the Supreme Court in the middle of the day to complain about super PACs and urge the court to reconsider. That's significant. I do think this is gaining traction. People are getting this, and they're angry about it.

About the Author

Most Popular

The legend of the Confederate leader’s heroism and decency is based in the fiction of a person who never existed.

The strangest part about the continued personality cult of Robert E. Lee is how few of the qualities his admirers profess to see in him he actually possessed.

Memorial Day has the tendency to conjure up old arguments about the Civil War. That’s understandable; it was created to mourn the dead of a war in which the Union was nearly destroyed, when half the country rose up in rebellion in defense of slavery. This year, the removal of Lee’s statue in New Orleans has inspired a new round of commentary about Lee, not to mention protests on his behalf by white supremacists.

The myth of Lee goes something like this: He was a brilliant strategist and devoted Christian man who abhorred slavery and labored tirelessly after the war to bring the country back together.

On August 21, the “moon” will pass between the Earth and the sun, obscuring the light of the latter. The government agency NASA says this will result in “one of nature’s most awe-inspiring sights.” The astronomers there claim to have calculated down to the minute exactly when and where this will happen, and for how long. They have reportedly known about this eclipse for years, just by virtue of some sort of complex math.

This seems extremely unlikely. I can’t even find these eclipse calculations on their website to check them for myself.

Meanwhile the scientists tell us we can’t look at it without special glasses because “looking directly at the sun is unsafe.”

Just seven months into his presidency, Trump appears to have achieved a status usually reserved for the final months of a term.

In many ways, the Trump presidency never got off the ground: The president’s legislative agenda is going nowhere, his relations with foreign leaders are frayed, and his approval rating with the American people never enjoyed the honeymoon period most newly elected presidents do. Pundits who are sympathetic toward, or even neutral on, the president keep hoping that the next personnel move—the appointment of White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, say, or the long-rumored-but-never-delivered departure of Steve Bannon—will finally get the White House in gear.

But what if they, and many other people, are thinking about it wrong? Maybe the reality is not that the Trump presidency has never gotten started. It’s that he’s already reached his lame-duck period. For most presidents, that comes in the last few months of a term. For Trump, it appears to have arrived early, just a few months into his term. The president did always brag that he was a fast learner.

An analysis of Stormfront forums shows a sometimes sophisticated understanding of the limits of ancestry tests.

The white-nationalist forum Stormfront hosts discussions on a wide range of topics, from politics to guns to The Lord of the Rings. And of particular and enduring interest: genetic ancestry tests. For white nationalists, DNA tests are a way to prove their racial purity. Of course, their results don’t always come back that way. And how white nationalists try to explain away non-European ancestry is rather illuminating of their beliefs.

Two years ago—before Donald Trump was elected president, before white nationalism had become central to the political conversation—Aaron Panofsky and Joan Donovan, sociologists then at the University of California, Los Angeles, set out to study Stormfront forum posts about genetic ancestry tests. They presented their study at the American Sociological Association meeting this Monday. (A preprint of the paper is now online.) After the events in Charlottesville this week, their research struck a particular chord with the audience.

More comfortable online than out partying, post-Millennials are safer, physically, than adolescents have ever been. But they’re on the brink of a mental-health crisis.

One day last summer, around noon, I called Athena, a 13-year-old who lives in Houston, Texas. She answered her phone—she’s had an iPhone since she was 11—sounding as if she’d just woken up. We chatted about her favorite songs and TV shows, and I asked her what she likes to do with her friends. “We go to the mall,” she said. “Do your parents drop you off?,” I asked, recalling my own middle-school days, in the 1980s, when I’d enjoy a few parent-free hours shopping with my friends. “No—I go with my family,” she replied. “We’ll go with my mom and brothers and walk a little behind them. I just have to tell my mom where we’re going. I have to check in every hour or every 30 minutes.”

Those mall trips are infrequent—about once a month. More often, Athena and her friends spend time together on their phones, unchaperoned. Unlike the teens of my generation, who might have spent an evening tying up the family landline with gossip, they talk on Snapchat, the smartphone app that allows users to send pictures and videos that quickly disappear. They make sure to keep up their Snapstreaks, which show how many days in a row they have Snapchatted with each other. Sometimes they save screenshots of particularly ridiculous pictures of friends. “It’s good blackmail,” Athena said. (Because she’s a minor, I’m not using her real name.) She told me she’d spent most of the summer hanging out alone in her room with her phone. That’s just the way her generation is, she said. “We didn’t have a choice to know any life without iPads or iPhones. I think we like our phones more than we like actual people.”

Antifa’s activists say they’re battling burgeoning authoritarianism on the American right. Are they fueling it instead?

Since 1907, Portland, Oregon, has hosted an annual Rose Festival. Since 2007, the festival had included a parade down 82nd Avenue. Since 2013, the Republican Party of Multnomah County, which includes Portland, had taken part. This April, all of that changed.

In the days leading up to the planned parade, a group called the Direct Action Alliance declared, “Fascists plan to march through the streets,” and warned, “Nazis will not march through Portland unopposed.” The alliance said it didn’t object to the Multnomah GOP itself, but to “fascists” who planned to infiltrate its ranks. Yet it also denounced marchers with “Trump flags” and “red maga hats” who could “normalize support for an orange man who bragged about sexually harassing women and who is waging a war of hate, racism and prejudice.” A second group, Oregon Students Empowered, created a Facebook page called “Shut down fascism! No nazis in Portland!”

Anti-Semitic logic fueled the violence over the weekend, no matter what the president says.

The “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville was ostensibly about protecting a statue of Robert E. Lee. It was about asserting the legitimacy of “white culture” and white supremacy, and defending the legacy of the Confederacy.

So why did the demonstrators chant anti-Semitic lines like “Jews will not replace us”?

The demonstration was suffused with anti-black racism, but also with anti-Semitism. Marchers displayed swastikas on banners and shouted slogans like “blood and soil,” a phrase drawn from Nazi ideology. “This city is run by Jewish communists and criminal niggers,” one demonstrator told Vice News’ Elspeth Reeve during their march. As Jews prayed at a local synagogue, Congregation Beth Israel, men dressed in fatigues carrying semi-automatic rifles stood across the street, according to the temple’s president. Nazi websites posted a call to burn their building. As a precautionary measure, congregants had removed their Torah scrolls and exited through the back of the building when they were done praying.

The nation’s current post-truth moment is the ultimate expression of mind-sets that have made America exceptional throughout its history.

When did America become untethered from reality?

I first noticed our national lurch toward fantasy in 2004, after President George W. Bush’s political mastermind, Karl Rove, came up with the remarkable phrase reality-based community. People in “the reality-based community,” he told a reporter, “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality … That’s not the way the world really works anymore.” A year later, The Colbert Report went on the air. In the first few minutes of the first episode, Stephen Colbert, playing his right-wing-populist commentator character, performed a feature called “The Word.” His first selection: truthiness. “Now, I’m sure some of the ‘word police,’ the ‘wordinistas’ over at Webster’s, are gonna say, ‘Hey, that’s not a word!’ Well, anybody who knows me knows that I’m no fan of dictionaries or reference books.

If the president is concerned about violence on the left, he can start by fighting the white supremacist movements whose growth has fueled its rise.

In his Tuesday press conference, Donald Trump talked at length about what he called “the alt left.” White supremacists, he claimed, weren’t the only people in Charlottesville last weekend that deserved condemnation. “You had a group on the other side that was also very violent,” he declared. “Nobody wants to say that.”

I can say with great confidence that Trump’s final sentence is untrue. I can do so because the September issue of TheAtlantic contains an essay of mine entitled “The Rise of the Violent Left,” which discusses the very phenomenon that Trump claims “nobody wants” to discuss. Trump is right that, in Charlottesville and beyond, the violence of some leftist activists constitutes a real problem. Where he’s wrong is in suggesting that it’s a problem in any way comparable to white supremacism.